Samsara

[Stosh]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

without it, you cannot even presume to prove that something "exists" outside of awareness. So even that meta-concept (that something exists outside of awareness) is predicated on awareness.

Again , I have to agree , that what I infer , is a matter of my awareness, but I am not compelled to accept that awareness creates the reality , if the reality is independent of it. 

I already proved the independence of the character of the state of that which exists outside my awareness.

Inference was allowed. You can't back out of it now. 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Stosh

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

Now new definitions... I thought that objects were not separate, is not an object/thought also awareness?

it is a modification of awareness, only. Doesn't REALLY exist. Sort of like how a dream object doesn't REALLY exist, when considered from a waking state perspective  

 

Not new definitions at all. These are just deeper unfolding of the subject. It is always better to start with a simple set of concepts, and then unfold naturally

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Again , I have to agree , that what I infer , is a matter of my awareness, but I am not compelled to accept that awareness creates the reality , if the reality is independent of it. 

I already proved the independence of the character of the state of that which exists outside my awareness.

Inference was allowed. You can't back out of it now. 

 

yes but that doesn't mean inference is always correct (like Jeff pointed out, sometimes fog can be mistaken for smoke, a rope for a snake, and so on).

 

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

And the mind arises in awareness. So it was predicated on awareness. 

 

Awareness arises in mind.  It is predicated on mind. 

 

When have you ever been aware of something outside of your mind?  But, your mind continues to function when you are not aware.

 

Take a coma (or deep sleep) as an example.  You lose "awareness", but the body continues to function while you are not aware, hence the mind is still going and keeping things running.  

 

Try that one...  

[Stosh]

Just now, dwai said:

yes but that doesn't mean inference is always correct (like Jeff pointed out, sometimes fog can be mistaken for smoke, a rope for a snake, and so on).

 

True again , yet it is already a sanctioned method of knowing -potential error included.

Errors are akin to not not being aware of the state which does exist, errors are manifestations of awareness, So , that which one considers themselves to be aware of , may or may not be true.

It is the awareness which is not provable as true , not the state of the existing reality , which by definition is true. 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

Awareness arises in mind.  It is predicated on mind. 

 

When have you ever been aware of something outside of your mind?  But, your mind continues to function when you are not aware.

 

Take a coma (or deep sleep) as an example.  You lose "awareness", but the body continues to function while you are not aware, hence the mind is still going and keeping things running.  

 

Try that one...  

It is just a matter of convention. I use awareness as the primary quality of illumination. Some people call it Pure Consciousness or Objectless Consciousness. If you call it the "mind", then that's fine with me.

 

By mind I mean a stream of objects in Pure Consciousness/Awareness. 

 

It is just a matter of semantics. 

[dwai]

Just now, Stosh said:

True again , yet it is already a sanctioned method of knowing -potential error included.

Errors are akin to not not being aware of the state which does exist, errors are manifestations of awareness, So , that which one considers themselves to be aware of , may or may not be true.

Yes, the mind is prone to errors.

Just now, Stosh said:

It is the awareness which is not provable as true , not the state of the existing reality , which by definition is true. 

That is not logical. You need awareness to prove or disprove anything. 

[Stosh]

Just now, dwai said:

Yes, the mind is prone to errors.

That is not logical. You need awareness to prove or disprove anything. 

Yes it is   

I do indeed need the awareness which allows inference , to infer,,, but inference is not direct-apprehension-style-awareness. 

Proof , is a requirement I might place on input, but that is simply a means by which I might come to accept an inference. The reality of the hole or chair , its character , its impact on anyone else who wanders into the room , etc , is still independent of my acceptance. 

 

[Jeff]

Just now, dwai said:

It is just a matter of convention. I use awareness as the primary quality of illumination. Some people call it Pure Consciousness or Objectless Consciousness. If you call it the "mind", then that's fine with me.

 

By mind I mean a stream of objects in Pure Consciousness/Awareness. 

 

It is just a matter of semantics. 

 

I am saying something different with that post, and it goes to the perceptional nature of what you are calling "awareness" and the arguments you are supporting. While I am not personally stating this position, I believe it is the same logical flow as what you are stating and will meet all of the same awareness criteria stuff. The logic is as follows...

 

There is no pure consciousness/awareness and you are just imagining that within your mind.  You are simply a being with a body and mind/brain inside of your body.  Awareness is a subset of Mind. This is easily proven given that you have no awareness without your mind, but the mind continues to do stuff and function when there is no awareness. Turn off the mind and all awareness stops, turn off the awareness and the mind can continue doing things.  Hence, Awareness is a subset of Mind.

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

I am saying something different with that post, and it goes to the perceptional nature of what you are calling "awareness" and the arguments you are supporting. While I am not personally stating this position, I believe it is the same logical flow as what you are stating and will meet all of the same awareness criteria stuff. The logic is as follows...

 

There is no pure consciousness/awareness and you are just imagining that within your mind.  You are simply a being with a body and mind/brain inside of your body.  Awareness is a subset of Mind. This is easily proven given that you have no awareness without your mind, but the mind continues to do stuff and function when there is no awareness. Turn off the mind and all awareness stops, turn off the awareness and the mind can continue doing things.  Hence, Awareness is a subset of Mind.

 

 

 

 

That is not my experience, nor of millions of other meditators who have gone before us.

The body and mind are both products of the awareness. Turning off the mind doesn't stop anything except the world. Awareness remains as clarity. 

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Yes it is   

I do indeed need the awareness which allows inference , to infer,,, but inference is not direct-apprehension-style-awareness. 

Proof , is a requirement I might place on input, but that is simply a means by which I might come to accept an inference. The reality of the hole or chair , its character , its impact on anyone else who wanders into the room , etc , is still independent of my acceptance. 

 

Again, Awareness is the quality that allows knowing to arise. It is Pure Consciousness without objects.  Try this exercise, tell your mind -"'Mind...I am going to listen to whatever you want to tell me, see whatever you are going to show me.." and then sit in attention, for the mind to rise and show you things. You have found awareness or consciousness without objects because the mind will refuse to rise. 

[s1va]

Perhaps it is the way we define the terms that makes the difference.  What is the mind?  Is awareness not a subset of the mind, or is mind a subset of awareness?

 

Also, what happens at death.  The general belief is that the body and the mind cease.  What continues then, the awareness or the mind?

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

That is not my experience, nor of millions of other meditators who have gone before us.

The body and mind are both products of the awareness. Turning off the mind doesn't stop anything except the world. Awareness remains as clarity. 

 

So you have directly experienced that your body is a product of awareness? Been consciously aware when you had no body?

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, s1va said:

Perhaps it is the way we define the terms that makes the difference.  What is the mind?  Is awareness not a subset of the mind, or is mind a subset of awareness?

 

Also, what happens at death.  The general belief is that the body and the mind cease.  What continues then, the awareness or the mind?

If you don't want to call Pure Consciousness without objects (or Empty mind)  as Mind, then that's fine with me too. If you want to call "knowing" as awareness, then that too is fine by me. 

 

There is neither birth nor death. They too are arisings in awareness. Birth is the establishment of a sense of being "I AM". And Death is a cessation of it.  We are born and die every day, with waking up and deep sleep. Awareness, as i use the term, exists irrespective of whether an "I AM" exists or not. 

[Stosh]

Just now, dwai said:

Again, Awareness is the quality that allows knowing to arise. It is Pure Consciousness without objects.  Try this exercise, tell your mind -"'Mind...I am going to listen to whatever you want to tell me, see whatever you are going to show me.." and then sit in attention, for the mind to rise and show you things. You have found awareness or consciousness without objects because the mind will refuse to rise. 

I agreed to that already , yes I need awareness to hold mental objects , but inference was an allowed method of knowing , and that is not direct apprehension. Its is the interaction of objects in the mind which model an external reality. The external reality is just unknowable as a direct apprehension. Your moods are directly apprehended , you know them , and they are always true. The model you make of the external world may not fit the external reality , and in that sense , it is your inference which would be incorrect. 

Again , inference was a sanctioned method of knowing, un-sanction it , and its a more difficult proposition to handle. 

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

So you have directly experienced that your body is a product of awareness? Been consciously aware when you had no body?

Yes. That is what happens in Nirvikalpa samadhi. There is neither mind, nor body, only awareness. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Yes. That is what happens in Nirvikalpa samadhi. There is neither mind, nor body, only awareness. 

 

And your body actually disappeared?  Or, you just stopped noticing it for a few moments?

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

I agreed to that already , yes I need awareness to hold mental objects , but inference was an allowed method of knowing , and that is not direct apprehension.

 There is a hierarchy of validity in the three levels i have shared of course. 
Most valid is Direct experience, next testimony of reliable witnesses and finally inference. So it is quite possible that what you know through inference is overruled by the previous two. What you know by the testimony of others be overruled by direct experience.

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Its is the interaction of objects in the mind which model an external reality. The external reality is just unknowable as a direct apprehension. Your moods are directly apprehended , you know them , and they are always true. The model you make of the external world may not fit the external reality , and in that sense , it is your inference which would be incorrect. 

Again , inference was a sanctioned method of knowing, un-sanction it , and its a more difficult proposition to handle. 

Let us put it this way. Inference is a tertiary mode of knowing. In terms of mathematics, a result of a probabilistic assessment of something's trueness or not. 

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

And your body actually disappeared?  Or, you just stopped noticing it for a few moments?

We do many things that defies the boundary of the body. During my taiji meditations I often perceive my body to be congealed energy and nothing else.  A lot of "matter manipulation" happens because there "body" is not what it seems. 

 

It is another matter as to why is it so hard let go of the notion that the body is made of matter, and the mind/consciousness is a property that emerges from this...

[s1va]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

If you don't want to call Pure Consciousness without objects (or Empty mind)  as Mind, then that's fine with me too. If you want to call "knowing" as awareness, then that too is fine by me. 

 

There is neither birth nor death. They too are arisings in awareness. Birth is the establishment of a sense of being "I AM". And Death is a cessation of it.  We are born and die every day, with waking up and deep sleep. Awareness, as i use the term, exists irrespective of whether an "I AM" exists or not. 

 

 

I was not calling or naming anything   Just asking some questions about the terms 'mind' and 'awareness' in the way they are used in this thread.  Unless we agree on the basic definition of what the mind and awareness is, further discussion built on those terms could mean different things to different people.

 

About birth and death, they are as real as anything else to do with the body and the mind.  If I deny saying there is no reality to birth or death, then I have to deny the reality of my next meal also, saying it's all awareness.  But, I am hungry and I love my next meal 

 

[dwai]

14 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

 

I was not calling or naming anything   Just asking some questions about the terms 'mind' and 'awareness' in the way they are used in this thread.  Unless we agree on the basic definition of what the mind and awareness is, further discussion built on those terms could mean different things to different people.

 

Which is why both jeff and I defined what we mean by Awareness and Mind. What he calls mind, I call awareness, what he calls awareness, I call mind. Thereby the confusion

14 minutes ago, s1va said:

About birth and death, they are as real as anything else to do with the body and the mind.  If I deny saying there is no reality to birth or death, then I have to deny the reality of my next meal also, saying it's all awareness.  But, I am hungry and I love my next meal 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai

[neti neti]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Then one would need to clearly establish they are only wanting to talk one view point out of the many hindu doctrines.

 

I, by default, tread lightly within a thread I haven't begun, Jonesy. At the very least, I don't come in to them calling established doctrines false as if my assertions could not also be labeled as assumptions. Most importantly, I answer any and all questions posed toward me. Thanks for your input though.

[neti neti]

The 2nd post in this thread expresses the limitations of mind in these matters quite thoroughly, and it's about as close as it gets.

[s1va]

47 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

I, by default, tread lightly within a thread I haven't begun, Jonesy. At the very least, I don't come in to them calling established doctrines false as if my assertions could not also be labeled as assumptions. Most importantly, I answer any and all questions posed toward me. Thanks for your input though.

 

I just happened to read this other thread, 'The heart is the very Self of Siva'  started by Jonesboy's in his PPD just couple of weeks back.  Check the links below and also the other posts you made in that thread.  You have made several posts in that thread, raised some interesting questions and participated in the discussion.  It was an interesting discussion and debate, similar to this discussion in certain ways.  It looks to me like you sought out and went to Jonesboy's PPD to discuss and debate this topic with him and Jeff, and raise questions that are similar to the ones discussed on this post. 

 

As an onlooker, it gives me the impression you were genuinely interested in discussing and exploring these topics based on your dialogs with Jeff and Jonesboy in this other thread.  So, it was a bit surprising and shocking to come across your comments yesterday about trolling and annoyance, when Jeff seems to engaged in a very similar discussion in your thread and what appeared to me as some genuinely interesting questions.  If such questions are unwelcome in your thread, that can also be understandable, but I was further surprised to see the words 'troll the Hindu section'.  In no way, can those questions or discussion be seen as a troll to entire Hindu section - imho.

 

 

 

 

 

[neti neti]

58 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I just happened to read this other thread, 'The heart is the very Self of Siva'  started by Jonesboy's in his PPD just couple of weeks back.  Check the links below and also the other posts you made in that thread.  You have made several posts in that thread, raised some interesting questions and participated in the discussion.  It was an interesting discussion and debate, similar to this discussion in certain ways.  It looks to me like you sought out and went to Jonesboy's PPD to discuss and debate this topic with him and Jeff, and raise questions that are similar to the ones discussed on this post. 

 

As an onlooker, it gives me the impression you were genuinely interested in discussing and exploring these topics based on your dialogs with Jeff and Jonesboy in this other thread.  So, it was a bit surprising and shocking to come across your comments yesterday about trolling and annoyance, when Jeff seems to engaged in a very similar discussion in your thread and what appeared to me as some genuinely interesting questions.  If such questions are unwelcome in your thread, that can also be understandable, but I was further surprised to see the words 'troll the Hindu section'.  In no way, can those questions or discussion be seen as a troll to entire Hindu section - imho.

 

 

 

 

Questions were posted and answers were offered in that thread, unlike this one. In fact, upon closer inspection I believe you'll also find that most questions asked of him in that thread were also skillfully dodged.

 

When someone like Jeff, who I believe to be quite knowledgeable in the subject at hand, comes in here with what seems like the sole purpose of pointing out logical flaws without any support for the foundations of his conclusions, (other than "it's obvious , you're wrong") then yes, I see that as trolling. Sorry if you don't see it s1va.

 

I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion similar to the thread you've highlighted if he would be so kind as to lay out the reasoning behind HIS premises. Most preferably, by the common courtesy of at least attempting to answer the questions asked of him. The fact that he won't, speaks volumes of his intentions from my perspective. Perhaps he will yet prove me wrong.

Edited March 16, 2018 by neti neti